censorship in a first world country

Loh Chee Kong was not very pleased with the censorship of the film, Zahari's 17 Years. He questioned the necessity to continue to ban a film on Zahari when books on him are available in the shops. Could the film be that different in presenting a different truth or truth from another angle? Or the motions, pictures and sound can have a greater impact on the viewers? What the film is about is the political activities of a man of an era and idealism that are history today. Like communism was once a taboo topic, today it is openly discussed as just another ideology that is no longer relevant to the creating of a new world. Would the life of Zahari be that influential and emotional that exposing it to the interested public would lead to unrest in our society? Have our society and people grown over the years, matured and be able to cope with the drama and issues of the past? Or we are still the naive and impressionable little country bumpkins that must be protected from the influence of the media, that we are still deemed to be unfit to see a different truth? We are first world, man!

Right of reply

After Balji shared his disappointment on the two 'could have been great leaders' but failing to nurture successors, the Today paper did the proper thing by allowing replies by Tan Kin Lian and another forumer to address the issue. Both came out with their facts to prove that the two leaders actually have done very well in developing many successors especially in the case of Philip. And the forumer, Rodney Tan Wee Hong, even have all the names to show what Philip had done. Rodney also made the comment that it is easy to criticise but one must support it with facts and not making sweeping and unsubstantiated statements in the main stream media. What has happened is that it proves that the right of reply is very important to balance out a one sided view. It gives a better and clearer truth.

en bloc angst

This en bloc rule seems to be getting quite a hearing as more minority flat owners are affected. Apparently the majority have been dictating and imposing their goodness to the minority and getting away with it. Now what is the fuss when the minority are also having a beneficiary to it? They should be very thankful to the majority for carving out a deal which they would not be able to get on their own. I say, the minority should just live with the deal and should not be the stumbling block to progress and development. And the minority should not hold the majority at ransom just because one or two wanted a little more. It is just the rule of the game and everyone should play by the rule. In the name of progress and democracy, the en bloc ruling is a good thing and should be upheld until a better or more briliant formula is available.

of people or sheep

I share the views of Nurul Aziah Hussin in her letter to the Straits Times today titled 'Encourage ownership of national issues.' I quote, 'Public response to issues such as the recent debate on the ministerial pay hike, is more than an expression of "emotion" - it is the expression of citizens taking ownership of these issues, and asing our Govt to rise to the challenge of accountability and justification beyond performance legitimacy.' Basically what she said is that the people must change gear, move up, play a bigger role, take more interest in national affairs. If the people are just sheep, contend to grazing their little patches of grass and oblivious to all things around them, then what good are we as a nation...of sheep?

Power relationship between the ruler and the being ruled

In a totalitarian, authoritarian or dictatorial system, the power relationship is very simple. The ruler has absolute power and owns everything, including power of course. And they act in such a way that power will be theirs forever. This in many instances lead to the wielding of power without any restraint, and abuses are unavoidable. But the rulers have no fear as the ruled are unlikely to do anything, nor can they do anything to the rulers. Unfortunately, history has proven that this is not true as in the case of Saddam Hussein and his family. Also happened in ASEAN countries. But during the reign of these rulers, the ruled will accept whatever that they have to take. It was a defeatist attitude, a hopeless situation. The sheep and the shepherd. The people were owned by the rulers and their lives were meaningless except just to exist, but at the mercy of the rulers. In the western democracy model, the US and Europe, the rulers understand that their power is temporal, transcient. They are elected only for a number of terms. And it is only a matter of time before they become common folks, walking side by side with the people in the market or laughing together in the football stadium. Such rulers tend to be less dismissive and arrogant. For they will fall flat on their face when power is not there. And the people knew the formula. So the people are freer in their thoughts. They speak up when they need to. They need not fear that the rulers will fix them up nicely. And if the rulers do that, they have ways to answer back. Perhaps this is the strength of the western model, when power is not perpetuated as if it will always be there and those who assumed power can do what they want. The probability of abuses is that much lower as all good things will come to an end very rapidly. Where are we? Why did so many people that I talked to, even my friends, all have this undisclosed fear? Didn't they know that the bugger could be his kampong kid or the boy in the next HDB flat, but once in power, he becomes something different, someone to fear? Would they feel the same if they know that the bugger will in a matter of time become being ruled rather than the ruler?